By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 26th Aug 16
Faced with a potentially disastrous
information leak that could blunt the operational edge of six Scorpene
conventional submarines that India is building under licence from French
shipyard, DCNS, the Indian Navy is carefully downplaying concerns.
On Thursday, a day after a reputed Melbourne
daily, The Australian, reported the leak of 22,400 pages of technical
information about India’s Scorpene submarines from DCNS, New Delhi stated: “The
documents that have been posted on the website by an Australian news agency
have been examined and do not pose any security compromise as the vital
parameters have been blacked out.”
The Australian has indeed redacted (blacked
out) sections of the Scorpene documents that it deemed highly sensitive.
However, the documents were made available to The Australian in full, without
redaction. Whoever shared it with the newspaper remains in possession of reams
of technical information about the Scorpene.
Admirals in New Delhi admit there is no way
of knowing where that information has gone. The Australian noted that “the DCNS
documents detail the most sensitive combat capabilities of India’s new $US3 bn
($3.9bn) submarine fleet and would provide an intelligence bonanza if obtained
by India’s strategic rivals, such as Pakistan or China.”
New Delhi admits to this possibility only
reluctantly, stating: “The Government of India, as a matter of abundant
precaution, is also examining the impact if the information contained in the
documents claimed to be available with the Australian sources is compromised.”
Business Standard learnt that Defence
Minister Manohar Parrikar passed orders on Wednesday evening to urgently pursue
the matter with the French side. The defence ministry announced today: “The
Indian Navy has taken up the matter with Director General of Armament of the
French Government expressing concern over this incident and has requested the
French Government to investigate this incident with urgency and share their
findings with the Indian side. The matter is being taken up with
concerned foreign governments through diplomatic channels to verify the
authenticity of the reports.”
Off-the-record, a senior Indian Navy
official scoffs at The Australian’s claim of having accessed 22,400 pages of
Scorpene data. “The newspaper’s webpage carries links to just 13 pages of documentation.
How do we know they have actually seen 22,400 pages? As things stand today, it
is only a claim”, he says.
Another well-informed navy officer avers
that the documents leaked by The Australian do not tally with the Scorpene documentation
DCNS provided to India. “Our analysis suggests the leaked documents relate to
the Scorpenes in service with Malaysia and Chile. There is also data relating
to the Mistral helicopter carrier vessel that Russia is buying. But the
documents we hold are different”, he says.
If that is so, it remains unexplained why
the leaked documents, which are available on The Australian’s website, bear a
red stamp saying: “Restricted Scorpene India”.
Navy officials are also taking pains to
argue --- without having seen all the leaked documents --- that the information
put out consists only of broad technical specifications that are freely available
in commercial documents. They argue that key submarine attributes like “audio
signature”, which is unique to each vessel, remains secret. Furthermore, since
the Scorpene weapons package, including torpedoes and surface attack missiles,
have not yet been fitted, weaponry details could not have been leaked.
Even so, a wary Parrikar has tossed the
ball into the hands of a committee. Said a ministry statement today: “The
detailed assessment of potential impact is being undertaken by a high level
committee constituted by the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Navy is taking
all necessary steps to mitigate any probable security compromise.”
Given how vital the Scorpene is to the
navy’s submarine capability, it is unsurprising the impact of the leak is being
played down. To meet its operational needs, the navy assesses it requires 24-26
submarines. Currently, there are just 13 operational submarines, of which just
8-10 are functional at any given time. The six Scorpenes being built by Mazagon
Dock Ltd, Mumbai (MDL) under Project 75 are, therefore, vital.
Equally vital is the long-delayed Project
75-I, which involves building another six submarines. Every major submarine
builder, including Russia, Sweden, Germany and Japan is aspiring for this
order, as is DCNS. This leak, however, coming on top of a four-year delay and
major cost escalation in building the Scorpene, cannot but damage DCNS’
prospects in India.
Ironically, many are assessing that the
document leak was not aimed at India, but at scuppering DCNS’ USD 38 billion
contract to build the Shortfin Barracuda submarine for the Australian Navy,
which it won in April. The French company said on Wednesday that it might be
the victim of “economic warfare”.
leak... indian side... by... french personnel... ???...
ReplyDelete"Faced with a potentially disastrous information leak that could blunt the operational edge of six Scorpene conventional submarines that India is building under licence from French shipyard, DCNS, the Indian Navy is carefully downplaying concerns." - That information was commercial information not unique to the Scorpene and certainly not relevant to the Indian Scorpene as no information is to date complied due to subs still undergoing tests. Only after it has been in service can manuals and unique signatures etc can be available so why is it deliberately propagated as if it is vital when you being in the army should know the hogwash passed on as confidential is in fact only restricted info for potential buyers which even I can access if DCNS thought I was a genuine buyer!
ReplyDeleteThe French are no longer in the race for P75I with this (or maybe even without it)
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about the leak is we the public know,it , not just our potential adversaries.
But can someone clarify some things :
Look at Kilo, how much do,you think it is secret since China has it.
Then we want to buy S400, after China bought it. Ok ?
Type 209 submarine, Turkey operates it. Pakistan and Turkey are quite close, is it not ?
The situation is worse for F-16, Su-30s etc.
In above cases just that you and me do not see the docs in newspaper.
Our firm assumption should be all imported stuff is compromised or can be during war (take case of argentina's Exocet missiles)
Frankly, IN and MoD are trying to search for a fig leaf.
ReplyDeleteSaying that critical information was redacted is useless. Who lay their eyes on the document before it was redacted? Who applied the black ink and when? The document ping ponged between multiple parties before it reached the press in Australia. Assuming that the redaction was done by the press, then the fully exposed document was changing hands - How many people saw it / copied it/ stored it / uploaded it on torrent/ analysed it / printed it and then used it for their chana masala cone? How many of those chaps have now approached ISI?
As for others that say that the information is commercially available and still more critical information like acoustic signatures and weapons information is safe - Who are they kidding? It is like saying "yes, 90% of the information is lost, but we still have 10%". Please tell me, just how much "commercial" information about INS Arihant would you be comfortable placing in the public domain?
The bottom line is that our depleted sub arm just got torpedoed. We have to assume 24000 pages have reduced the sub's capability by 30 to 40%. The future captain will have to work extra hard to ensure he can outfox the PLAN and PN, and work with the assumption PN/PLAN know much more about his boat than he does about theirs. - why hobble him with extra burden?
The only information in the public domain should be "This is submarine , it displaces tons, carries sailors and officers, and it is a happy boat"
The French should be asked to redesign all boats that are to be built, and effectively negate all the leaked info. The boat undergoing sea trials must be heavily modified during it first mid-life upgrade. We should ask if we can cancel the unbuild boats or completely replace them with designs that are no compromised. Australian Barracuda?
And - oh - anyone know the radar signature of the Rafale fighter when it is operating in combat mode? - just asking, incase it gets printed by the Dawn newspaper in Karachi.